Recently, USA started replaying Modern Family.
Recently, USA started replaying Modern Family.
Rotten Tomatoes is both a godsend AND a curse. On one hand, they can save you from watching a legitimately atrocious movie such as The Unborn or Suckerpunch, but then they praise other movies too highly (Cabin in the Woods) and give actually somewhat decent movies too low of a score. It’s all because it’s user based and the user rating is what the people visiting the site pay attention to. There are 3 films in particular that I’d like to discuss, 2 of which have a pretty low score and the other has a high score but is panned by the people who saw it and critics alike. Those films are Jumanji, Avatar and The Mummy (not in the correct order). Avatar has an 83%, Jumanji has a 50% and The Mummy has a 55%.
Both The Mummy and Jumanji are actually rated higher than I thought they’d be, as they’re right on the cusp of being rotten AND fresh, but they are-using the RT system-considered rotten. However, both these films are incredibly enjoyable, entertaining and easy to watch, and they both came out in the mid to late 90s, when we were trying to push our technology with graphics and cgi and special affects forward, so that movies like Avatar could be made. That’s why-despite the rotten rating and the fact that they’re actually pretty enjoyable-these films are VERY important. Yes, Jumanji and The Mummy are both incredibly silly and often times off the wall cheesy but it WAS the 90s. Yet, I will show Jumanji to my children and I STILL love The Mummy. Both are so fun to watch, and both have special effects (well, Jumanjis CGI stuff anyway) that hold up EXTREMELY well comparatively today.
This is why these films are important.
Take away the ratings and you’re left with movies that had to exist purely to push our technological advancements forward. I believe Roger Ebert said about Jumanji that the director had made a career off flashy big budget special affects films and the film is lifeless and dreadful, and while he has a standard point-films don’t NEED special affects to be great, or any effects at all-he’s also missing the fact that without movies like those then, we wouldn’t have the effects we have today. That’s a big thing. These films deserve the credit for taking the chance of pushing our special effects forward and being pioneers in a way. Also, there’s a BIG difference between a “film” and a “movie”. All 3 of these are movies. They aren’t meant to be artistic or life changing. They’re just meant to be entertaining. That’s why as kind of shitty as Avatar was and the pans it got, it was still decent because it was entertaining. Films are things that make you think and make you look at the world in a new fresh perspective. Things that are artistic like “The Artist” or “Citizen Kane” or “Gravity”. These are films.
Avatar is a whole other beast, though, because while the movie went on to be the highest grossing movie of all time, it’s not by ANY means a “great artistic endeavor”. I understand the rating it has because it’s certainly a mainstream hit. It was a cultural thing to go see. Plus, with James Camerons name attached it was a surefire box office draw, which usually happens with these insanely respected directors. BUT...I also understand the pans it got. It has a LOT of flaws. I mean, all I REALLY have to say is the “unobtainium” (which may have been named to BE bad on purpose, I don’t know) and you get the problems. It’s a formulaic story we’ve all seen a billion times before. It’s Pocahontas meets Ferngully in space. I don’t like any of those things and I don’t want the meeting anywhere, much less in space. In fact, it’s SO formulaic, and we all know it so well, any one of us could’ve sat down after seeing that trailer and wrote that script, almost beat for beat.
BUT, it needs the credit for doing what it did technologically. Avatar to me is the payoff for things like Jumanji and The Mummy. We saw the beginning and the end result, and we’ll see even more of the end result later on down the road. Someday something will come along with the effects of a movie and the artistic integrity of a film and be a perfect 100%. Life of Pi has already set us further down that path. Hugo was a great example. Shit, even A.I. (Artificial Intelligence) is a wonderful example of it, and that was eons before Avatar.
So yes, these movies may not be great and they may not be the best things you’ve ever seen, but give credit where credit is due because without movies like these, we wouldn’t have the effects we have today.
If you like my work on tumblr, please visit and share (and comment) on my website at www.hollywoodisdead.tk!
There are some documentaries that become commercial and mainstream to the point where you question if they’re legitimate. Supersize Me would probably be the best example, where years afterwards a lot of Spurlocks statements and research has been debunked, or so they say, but the thing about Supersize Me is it was pretty entertaining, and Spurlock is a pretty cool guy. The Cove would be another good one. Completely from the american point of view, and not going into the history of the japanese food culture itself, The Cove is another mainstream documentary that shows that these pander to people who don’t want both sides of the story. They simply buy whatever they are told and shown on screen. Who are WE to say what people can and cannot eat, or how they do it? Japanese people have been catching and eating dolphin for thousands of years. I guarantee you that if tomorrow someone made a documentary about cows, we’d all still go eat cow. We wouldn’t stop.
But the best example would be the 2011 documentary Bully. Unlike the other 2-which did actually have some good messages in them-this thing pissed me off. When this thing caught fire, it began the anti bully campaign that I LOATH. As someone who was bullied, you’d think I’d be all for it, except nobody made laws for me and the other kids. Nobody made a documentary. Nobody GAVE A SHIT. Kids need to learn to handle things on their own; survival of the fittest. It’s harsh, yeah, but it’s the world. Otherwise, everytime your kid comes into a problem even as an adult they’re going to think they can run to mommy and daddy, which is half the problem because by bringing in parents-as they did at some points in this film-and getting the bullies in trouble, all you’re doing is making the bullies ANGRIER and they’re going to hurt your kid more.
Opening rant aside, I HATED this documentary. I found it INCREDIBLY one sided, biased to the “victims” and you’re trying to stop something that has gone on forever and will never be fully stopped. It’s completely biased towards the “victims” of bullying, because they make the bullies in this film out to be these absolutely terrible kids who just hurt other kids, but where’s THOSE kids side of the story? Actions have reactions. There’s a reason someone does something. Perhaps those bullies are being bullied themselves or facing abuse at home. But do we see that? Does it ever even COME UP? NO. It doesn’t. We’re supposed to just buy it at face value that these kids are evil, awful, heartless people and they don’t deserve any sympathy. It’s so wrong. Not only that, but these kids are caught on camera saying things like, “I’m gonna stab you” and “you’re my bitch”. I’m sorry, but kids are smart. I guarantee you-even if they were told to just act like they normally do-no kid, NO KID WOULD EVER, allow themselves to be caught on tape saying and doing the things they were caught saying and doing. They know there’s repercussions to that. Imagine if their parents saw it! This documentary is selling a point of view.
And that’s the problem with mainstream documentaries I feel. Documentaries are supposed to show you something and allow you to see both sides of it and decide where you fall on how you feel about it. These mainstream documentaries-bully, the cover, supersize me-they don’t do that. They don’t sell truth, they sell biased one sided opinions and then attack anyone who says that’s wrong. That’s the other thing I really hate about the anti bully campaign. If you say you’re against it-even for good reasons-the anti bully people are bullies themselves, because they will verbally abuse you to the point where you just give in and have to be for anti bullying. It’s sickening. It’s downright sickening. You’re not allowed to have an opinion in these matters. Just shut up and follow the crowd. If you’re not with us, you’re against us; you’re our enemy.
How is that RIGHT?
AND…and this is the worst part to me…the director of this film said he made it because he himself was a victim of bullying. Ok, I can get behind that. For sure. It’s therapy. As a writer, as an artist, I can TOTALLY get behind that. But then he goes and makes this movie with the hopes that he can shed light and open eyes to this “epidemic” that has been going on forever and maybe better things. Alright, he didn’t do it in the best way, but his intentions were good, right? That does count for something. But then he SELLS IT. I’m sorry, I understand movies need to be profitable, but this is the thing that bugs me, because as Kyle said so well in South Park’s parody of the anti bully campaign episode: “If this video needs to be seen by everyone, why don’t you put it on the internet for free?” To which Stan had no reply. It boils down to pure market capitalism. This is darwinian capitalism at it’s finest. I get you need to recoup your cash from making this thing, but yeah, if it’s THAT important you wanna make THAT big a difference…shouldn’t it be easily accessible to everyone who needs to see it? Sure, a movie ticket is 8 bucks or so, but that 8 dollars still holds people from going to see this thing.
Bully isn’t without merit. It shows something that is a problem, for sure, but it shows in the wrong way, and it ultimately is only making the problem WORSE. “Raising awareness”? I’m sorry, but I’m pretty sure people are AWARE of bullying, cancer and aids. What we need are SOLUTIONS. Not awareness. Do I have solutions? No. Nobody really does. We deal with it. It’s a part of life and it makes us stronger.
Bully tried, but it didn’t work.
There’s a few people in the film industry who I think get hated on purely because it’s considered “cool” to hate them. Wes Anderson for example, is one of the ones I hear the most but honestly-and this is coming from a girl who went to film school and has made video content herself-almost all his films are totally fine. Andersons work is cool too because he’s got the Tim Burton disease (the “this is all i know how to do and i’m gonna beat you over the head with it”) where once you’ve seen one of his films, you’ve kind of seen them all, but not to the degree Burton has, because, while Anderson does make quirky indie films, each one of his films is different enough that you could mistake it for someone elses work. Example: The Life Aquatic was shot kind of open, and with some handheld, and on a larger scale and unless I knew who made it going in, I’m not sure I could’ve figured it out BECAUSE Moonrise Kingdom is EXACTLY the opposite. It’s tight, and concise and claustrophobic almost. It feels like a play. Two movies, made by the same guy and they feel extremely different. That’s talent.
But then there’s another person who gets shit on rather constantly by the mainstream audience, and that person is Diablo Cody. Now, it’s understandable to not enjoy something just because it’s “not your thing”. I get that. Some people just don’t like quirky independent flicks. Alright. But the criticisms I’ve read-from legitimate reviewers-is almost…sad. Juno in particular doesn’t deserve HALF the hate it gets. First off, one of the main criticisms I read constantly is that the dialogue in the film isn’t believable to real teenagers. Well, I’ll have you know I was a teenager when this came out, and uh, yes, it IS. That WAS how people talked. Maybe not to that exact degree, as Codys writing was almost an over the top parody of the teen vernacular, but it was pretty similar. The ironic thing here is the people making this criticism are 40 year old film critics who obviously haven’t been around a high school in 20 years outside of picking their kids up at the drop off spot. But let’s take this to the next level, shall we? If you’re going to criticize the teenagers, why not the adults? The adults act and speak just as unrealistically as the kids in this film do, and yet nobody seems to say a goddamn word about THAT.
In fact, Vanessa (Jason Batemans wife in the film) is the only person in the film who acts and reacts in a believable and rather realistic manner. That’s why you sympathize with her. You shouldn’t sympathize with Batemans character or even Juno because-yes while the are in rather bad situations-they’re both kinda assholes. Even Juno, to a degree, is just a little asshole. But guess what…TEENAGERS ARE ASSHOLES. Batemans character is realistic in the sense of the overgrown man child who can’t let go of his past dreams, but he’s also an asshole. This is why you want to see Vanessa get the kid and just be happy. This is why she’s relatable. Because in a sea of assholes-much like the real world-there’s always one really good person.
Juno is nothing if not a parody of ridiculously cheesy cliche teenage drama pregnancy flicks that take themselves far too seriously to be taken seriously by the audience themselves.
Does the film make some flaws? Every film makes some flaws. Are the films flaws because “the film is only something a dumbed down teenage white person” would like, as I’ve read? No. If anything, that just shows you’re a judgmental asshole. While I said before, Codys work can certainly be seen as polarizing-much like Andersons-her work isn’t BAD. Young Adult was a really good character study, Juno was nothing if not purely entertaining (which is all a movie really all a movie has to be anyway, you hypercritical bastards) and her TV series The United States of Tara is BRILLIANT. Absolutely brilliant.
Does she warrant the kind of hatred she gets? I don’t think so. As I said, I think the mainstream audience needs an indie person to pick on and hate because it’s cool, and she’s the target. Juno is a confidently shot and directed, humorously well written and decently acted film that I believe really began the age of hypercritical film review. And I realize that makes me sound RIDICULOUSLY hipster (“rah rah mainstream audience!”) but I’m coming purely from a filmmaking point of view, as a viewer of the public.
Roger Ebert loved it.
Shouldn’t that speak for something?
Or are you too fucking cool for him too?
There’s a few general themes and motifes that I love: